By an Elderly German saying Dresden was a war crime.

[Rjae]

He said, yes, Germany started the war but the bombing of Dresden was a war crime.

AIBU to be outraged by this.

Exterminating Jews, gipsies, and prisoners of war was a war crime.
Invading half a dozen European countries and murdering it's citizens was a war crime.
Bombing Londoners and other british cities long before Dresden was a war crime
Starting the fucking war was a war crime.

Dresden was horrific of course, but not a war crime, unless you consider everything a war crime. It shouldn't have happened, but neither should the war. I'm sorry so many people were killed and a beautiful city destroyed. They were civilians but they supported Hitler wholeheartedly.

No doubt it didn't do much except kill civilians in the long wrong, but that still doesn't make it a war crime.

Lumpy. In a world war there are no acceptable rules. It's destroy or be destroyed. There are conventions of war of course, but the Germans didn't stick to them. They didn't stick to them from start to finish, which is why I don't feel they (said elderly German gentleman) has no right to call what the allies did a war crime.

I agree it was an abomination and an act of unspeakable ferocity performed in the context of a likewise war, which we didn't want. It was done in an attempt to end the war sooner and destroy factories in Dresden. Civilians were also targets. I am not naive enough to believe otherwise, but horrific acts occur during war. If we rewrite history and apologise then we are giving encouragement to far right groups, dishonouring the men who fought and died for our freedom and in effect saying that Hitler was fighting a just war as were guilty of criminal acts. A very dangerous path to start straying down.

Molio. I have no sympathy with people saying the people in Dresden deserved to die. They didn't.

Is it wrong to bomb a city despite it having factories supporting the war effort because of the 25000 civilians who died? Of course it is on a moral level but in the context of the times it was a decision made out of a desperation to bring an end to 5 years of bloodshed. You can't take it out of context, thats the point of saying it's not a war crime. The war itself and what the Germans perpetrated were war crimes.

To say 'they started it' is a playground taunt is disingenuous because it's actually a very relevant fact. Dresden would not have happened but for the actions of the Germans themselves. I feel deep sorrow for the people of Dresden but I feel the same for all victims of war.

Dresden violated acceptable rules of war, which is why, I feel, it was a war crime. LumpySpacedPrincess

How?

Whose acceptable principles?

Yours?

Rjae in any war there are acceptable rules. The Geneva Convention.
It was created precisely because of the horrors of WWII. If we are to apply the Geneva convention to what happened in Dresden then yes it's a war crime.
You repeatedly stating otherwise really doesn't alter that.

On the contrary, we dishonour anyone who fought and died precisely by NOT examining our failings in the past. Germany did it. So should we. There's no rewriting of history required.
It's a far more dangerous path to have some simplistic view of good guys and bad guys.

TheCat at least Lumpy appears to have some.

Whose acceptable principles?

You're on the internet. There are loads of search engines, including google, which will give you the answer very quickly.

• Rules of War
• Overview of rules of war
• [[https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0365.pdf Basic rules of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols]]
• List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law

Of course Dresden was a war crime, as was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War itself is a crime, and tarnishes everyone. You make horrible decisions in war, trying to achieve the greater good and hope, on balance, it's worth it at the end. Today the people of Germany and Japan are free, and Nazism is gone for the world, so I think on balance it was the right thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was moral or that we shouldn't feel sorry or repentant for the deaths of the innocent.

Slaggyisland yes I think it was - I can't find the books at the moment as they were small and thin and I have too many books! I was thinking of Ravensbrueck but that was the womens' KZ. I

You're on the internet. There are loads of search engines, including google, which will give you the answer very quickly.

That's very true, but what bearing do rules drawn up after an event, have any bearing on an event in the past?

(most of those so-called rules of war have ignored by every military on earth in the past 75 years, so they are essentially meaningless)

OMFT, for the cheap seats, no-one ever in the entirety of the first and second world wars, was ever charged with the 'war crime' of bombing civilians.

No crime, no punishment, no guilt.

War is the only crime.

It's bound to be Sachsenhausen.

Seriously are you applying laws retrospectively?

And the laws that were in force at the time were they adhered to by the Germans?

If someone broke into your home with a carving knife and threatened your family would you resist producing a similar weapon and attack him or stand by while your children were murdered? He is breaking the law but you are not able to because you would need equal force and are constrained by the law? Or do you protect you children and strike first. Moral dilemma but doing nothing is not an option.

War is the only crime and if you resist it in any way you can it makes you a criminal too? Skewed logic.

Geneva convention 1949 I believe.

And the laws that were in force at the time were they adhered to by the Germans?

And we are back to "but they started it"...

Yet the city boasted it was “one of the foremost industrial locations in the Reich” and 127 factories had secretly been switched to war work, making bomb-aiming apparatus, searchlights and parts for V-1 flying bombs to name but a few

The V1 and V2 rockets were Hitlers last ditch weapons and didn't need an airforce to deliver them to the south of England.

Should we carpet bomb German cities and hope hitler surrenders or give him 6 more months to perfect and use these missiles? That was the question that had to be asked by the allies. I'm glad they made the right decision. I am not glad that so many people died. I am glad the allies won and we are a free people who can argue the rights and the wrongs of war.

Rjae yes I know that the Geneva convention was in 1949.
Yes I believe it provides a good framework to look back and examine the morality of past events.
That's an utterly spurious comparison and an insult to the innocents who died in the firestorm.

Lumpy. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but why is 'they started it not a valid argument?'

In what way spurious?

Your loved ones are threatened by a criminal.
You respond in any way possible to protect them, even if it means you become a criminal because you have used unreasonable and deadly force.

"But they started it" does not mean that you can respond in a disproportionate manner.

I find it hard to believe that an adult would even believe that to be a valid argument.

The response was not disproportionate when you consider the millions killed as the Germans rampaged across Europe. I am amazed an adult can't understand this simple fact.

Or the fact if the Germans hadn't wanted world domination started it Dresden wouldn't have happened. Context, context, context.

And if you doubt for one minute that neo nazis are using 'Dresden is a war crime' to further their own ends as I and others have pointed out ^ read this.

www.stormfront.org/forum/t1088447/

Stormfront.org
Voice of the embattled white minority.
Chilling

'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

That was a memo drafted by Churchill.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforth be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than that of the enemy

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive

What's new? I've said previously Churchill was ruthless and single minded. Unfortunately we needed someone like him against an enemy like hitler. Carpet bombing was a terror tactic as well as destroying factories, railway stations and ports and many cities were caught up in this.

Are you saying we shouldn't use tactics already used 4 years earlier by the Germans on London and other cities? I think it took 4 years of murderous rampage by Hitler to make the allies react in this way. I agree Churchill and the government though Dresden was a bridge too far in terms of a tactic or war (terror unfortunately) but that still doesn't make it a crime if their intention was to end a bloody war not of their choosing.

As I said, desperation and a desire for it to end especially with ballistic missiles already being fired (of which we had none in use) made them act in a way they decided was not desirable but it wasn't a war crime. Or do you support right wing neo nazis? See link

Who along with Professor Lindemann (a German), and Air Chief Marshal Portal, drew up the policy of dehousing the German people, burning the German workers out of their homes, and destroying their morale.

That he abandoned his own policy when it appeared excessive just shows what a typical arsehole politician he was.

The above memo shows too that Churchill had taken it for granted that the German people would be cared for and rehoused after the war and that the country would not be stripped of resources, which is in fact what happened.